A new Aurignacian engraving from Abri Blanchard, France: Implications for understanding Aurignacian graphic expression in Western and Central Europe

Bourrillon, Raphaëlle; White, Randall; Tartar, Élise; Chiotti, Laurent; Mensan, Romain; Clark, Amy; Castel, Jean-Christophe; Cretin, Catherine; Higham, Thomas; Morala, André; Ranlett, Sarah; Sisk, Matthew; Devièse, Thibaut; Comeskey, Daniel

doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2016.09.063

Cited by 50 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…when conditions were mild but cooler than those of the present. 67 More recent analyses of this specimen and other engraved bones from Abri Blanchard indicate that the marks were made with one tool, and probably at one time. Large quantities of hare remains also were recovered from the Yana River sites, which, although dating to a later interval (32, Decades ago, Marshack interpreted a pattern of engraved marks on a bone from an Aurignacian context at Abri Blanchard, France, as a lunar calendar, which falls into the category of information technology or AMS.…”

Section: Th E Tec Hn Olog Y Of G Loba L Di Sp E Rsa L : Nor Th Er Nmentioning

confidence: 81%

“…115 The site currently is dated to roughly 38,000 cal BP. 67 More recent analyses of this specimen and other engraved bones from Abri Blanchard indicate that the marks were made with one tool, and probably at one time. 67,69 The status of these marks as information technology is problematic at best.…”

Section: Th E Tec Hn Olog Y Of G Loba L Di Sp E Rsa L : Nor Th Er Nmentioning

confidence: 81%

“…The characteristic hook of an atlatl or spear-thrower handle has been identified in later Upper Paleolithic contexts in western Europe. 67 Microscopic analyses of the notches or indentations often reveal whether or not marks or groups of marks were made at different times and possibly with different tools. 20,60 Identification of arrow and dart points among the broader class of stone points used on handheld spears and other nonmechanical artifacts is based on morphometric analyses, especially of tip cross-sectional area and/or diagnostic impact fractures.…”

Section: Com P L Ex T Ech N Olog Y I N Th E a Rch E Ologi C Al R Ecmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…103 They were found within a two-square-meter area; all skeletal parts are represented and some bones exhibit traces of stone-tool damage, which suggests hunting for food, not simply for pelts ( Figure 10). 67,69 The status of these marks as information technology is problematic at best. 115 The site currently is dated to roughly 38,000 cal BP.…”

Section: Th E Tec Hn Olog Y Of G Loba L Di Sp E Rsa L : Nor Th Er Nmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The challenge for investigators is to distinguish traces of notation, with reference to the ethnographic record, from decoration and/or damage. 67 Microscopic analyses of the notches or indentations often reveal whether or not marks or groups of marks were made at different times and possibly with different tools. This is an important criterion for identifying an AMS ( Figure 5).…”

Section: Hoffecker and Hoffecker | 287mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Technological complexity and the global dispersal of modern humans

Hoffecker

2017

Evolutionary Anthropology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens) dispersed out of Africa roughly 120,000 years ago and again after 75,000 years ago. The early dispersal was geographically restricted to the Arabian Peninsula, Levant, and possibly parts of southern Asia. The later dispersal was ultimately global in scope, including areas not previously occupied by Homo. One explanation for the contrast between the two out-of-Africa dispersals is that the modern humans who expanded into Eurasia 120,000 years ago lacked the functionally and structurally complex technology of recent hunter-gatherers. This technology, which includes, for example, mechanical projectiles, snares and traps, and sewn clothing, provides not only expanded dietary breadth and increased rates of foraging efficiency and success in places where plant and animal productivity is low, but protection from cold weather in places where winter temperatures are low. The absence of complex technology before 75,000 years ago also may explain why modern humans in the Levant did not develop sedentary settlements and agriculture 120,000 years ago (i.e., during the Last Interglacial).

show abstract

Section: Th E Tec Hn Olog Y Of G Loba L Di Sp E Rsa L : Nor Th Er Nmentioning

confidence: 81%

Section: Th E Tec Hn Olog Y Of G Loba L Di Sp E Rsa L : Nor Th Er Nmentioning

confidence: 81%

Section: Com P L Ex T Ech N Olog Y I N Th E a Rch E Ologi C Al R Ecmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Th E Tec Hn Olog Y Of G Loba L Di Sp E Rsa L : Nor Th Er Nmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Hoffecker and Hoffecker | 287mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Technological complexity and the global dispersal of modern humans

Hoffecker

2017

Evolutionary Anthropology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Threading the Weft, Testing the Warp: Population Concepts and the European Upper Paleolithic Chronocultural Framework

Reynolds

2020

Vertebrate Paleobiology and Paleoanthropology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interpretations of the European Upper Paleolithic archaeological record have long relied on concepts of past populations. In particular, cultural taxonomic units-which are used as a framework for describing the archaeological record-are commonly equated with past populations. However, our cultural taxonomy is highly historically contingent, and does not necessarily accurately reflect variation in the archaeological record. Furthermore, we lack a secure theoretical basis for the inference of populations from taxonomic units. In order to move past these problems and satisfactorily address questions of Upper Paleolithic 2 populations, we need to entirely revise our approach to chronocultural framework building. Here, I outline a specific way of describing the archaeological record that deliberately avoids the use of cultural taxonomic units and instead concentrates on individual features of material culture. This approach may provide a more appropriate basis for the archaeological study of Upper Paleolithic populations and for comparison with genetic data.

show abstract